Now THIS Is Hypocrisy!

NAACP Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is a close second to “ad hominem attack” in the list of misused misunderstood accusations. One is only hypocritical when you are simultaneously, willfully and shamelessly engaging in the exact same conduct that you are publicly condemning. Opposing today conduct you endorsed or engaged in the past? Not hypocritical. Changing your mind about the virtues of past conduct? Not hypocritical. Condemning conduct by others that you are not able to stop yourself from engaging in but recognize as wrong?  Again, that’s not hypocrisy.

This is hypocrisy:

A local NAACP-organized march against the supposed “vote suppression” measure of requiring the showing of photo IDs at polling places as a prerequisite to vote required, as you can see above, the possession of photo IDs as a prerequisite to protesting the required possession of photo IDs.

A better and more cynical example it would be difficult to find. It also highlights the gross dishonesty of the partisan, race-baiting objections to simple, common, reasonable identification measures to ensure the integrity of the election process. The efforts to derail these measures across the country have entailed similar absurdities, such as witnesses flying cross-country, which requires photo identification, to testify under oath about how impossible it would be for people like them to meet photo ID requirements. The document distributed by the organization of the march makes it clear what is really going on, but better still, it gives us a single document to produce when we need a graphic example of true hypocrisy.

____________________________

Sources: Winston-Salem Journal, Daily Caller

Graphic: Daily Caller

53 thoughts on “Now THIS Is Hypocrisy!

  1. One is, I am guessing, to prepare for interactions with law enforcement. The other is about exercising a fundamental right. It’s no more hypocritical than saying “remember your passport” to people crossing a border. What would be hypocrisy would be requiring photo ID to elect NAACP officials. (Maybe they do. That would be a solid blog post.)

    The ID measures are not “common” or “reasonable”. Look at the map of which states are implementing ID requirements. There are a few exceptions (e.g. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) but they’re mostly tightly clustered in just the region a cynic would expect.

    If it were to prevent vote fraud, then proponents would recognize that vote fraud can happen in any direction and would not expect a partisan advantage from the new laws. They expect just that and say so in public. Mike Turzai in Pennsylvania said the voter ID law would deliver the state to Romney, not that it would deliver cleaner elections.

    Are the IDs going to be issued without charge? Wisconsin was charging $28 for an ID card. To avoid the letter of the law about poll taxes, they allow a fee waiver. As of the last report I saw the applicant had to know about the waiver somehow and specifically ask for it. A DMV employee who talked too freely about the fee waiver was fired the next day. I hope the resulting publicity changed the policy but there should be no doubt how it was meant to work before people found out.

    The kindest thing to say about voter ID laws is that they’re intended to block legal votes from Democrats and not specifically from blacks. Kindness is an ethical value but we should not give the benefit of the doubt to people who have had a hundred and fifty years of practice inventing innocent-sounding measures (who could object to testing for literacy?) to keep as many blacks away from the polls as possible without getting caught at it. For example, when my wife lived in Virginia, it was only possible to register to vote for an hour and a half every month, in person, at a place reachable only by car. Everyone knew the reason.

    Virginia today has a Republican Party official, rightly condemned by our host, who said it would be just fine if voting procedures kept “lazy blacks” away. One person proves nothing, if he’s on the fringe. His election to a leadership position proves that his attitude is at least acceptable to the rank and file. Who else has the rank and file voted for? How many of the officials they voted for supervise election procedures? What goals will those officials have?

    “Disparate impact” should be presumed deliberate when it happens in a jurisdiction with a long history of acting in bad faith. Honest cases of accidental disparity would disenfranchise whites as often as blacks.

    • The ID measures are not “common” or “reasonable”. Look at the map of which states are implementing ID requirements. There are a few exceptions (e.g. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) but they’re mostly tightly clustered in just the region a cynic would expect.

      Yeah, I would expect such racism in Indiana…

      If it were to prevent vote fraud, then proponents would recognize that vote fraud can happen in any direction and would not expect a partisan advantage from the new laws. They expect just that and say so in public. Mike Turzai in Pennsylvania said the voter ID law would deliver the state to Romney, not that it would deliver cleaner elections.

      We’ve had this discussion here on that very quote (which iirc was not an accurate quote). Voter fraud is most easily fought by tightening early voting and absentee ballots, by not allowing same-day registration, and by requiring ID to vote.

      Remember the UN observers who came to help those mean republicans didn’t disenfranchise anyone? They were – to a person – shocked that we didn’t require ID everywhere.

      Are the IDs going to be issued without charge?

      Yes, they are. Specifically stated in every law people have bitched about is that the ID is free. That people don’t bother to inform themselves about, well, anything isn’t fucking surprising.

      Virginia today has a Republican Party official, rightly condemned by our host, who said it would be just fine if voting procedures kept “lazy blacks” away.

      Hell, I’d like to see it keep stupid and/or uninformed people away, but my dream of a utopia where people who can’t even name their current Congressman don’t get to vote must remain but a dream.

      Voter turnout increases with voter ID laws. How is that “disenfranchising”?

      Photo ID is required for virtually every activity in modern society… Banking, buying alcohol or tobacco, air travel, even signing up for government benefits requires some form of photo ID. If someone is so disconnected from life as to not have an ID, I would wager they don’t know enough about what is going on around them to be able to cast an intelligent vote, and thus their vote becomes actually dangerous to a functioning democracy.

      • Banking, buying alcohol or tobacco, air travel, even signing up for government benefits requires some form of photo ID.

        and buying a firearm from a licensed dealer.

    • Baloney, to be precise:

      1. One is, I am guessing, to prepare for interactions with law enforcement. The other is about exercising a fundamental right.
      Organized protest is also a fundamental right.

      2. It’s no more hypocritical than saying “remember your passport” to people crossing a border. What would be hypocrisy would be requiring photo ID to elect NAACP officials. (Maybe they do. That would be a solid blog post.)

      “Remember your passport!” is EXACTLY like requiring voter ID, exactly as valid (but no more) and for the same reason, and many of the same people.

      3.The ID measures are not “common” or “reasonable”.

      The Supreme Court specifically ruled otherwise, with a liberal majority. Of course its reasonable. It was not until some clever Democrats and their media lackeys realized that they could simultaneously grease the skids for non-registered voters they could manipulate AND do what they have done best since 2008— engage in race-baiting that anyone serious argued that requiring an ID wasn’t reasonable.

      4. Look at the map of which states are implementing ID requirements. There are a few exceptions (e.g. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) but they’re mostly tightly clustered in just the region a cynic would expect.

      Your logic works both ways. Those without voter ID are exactly where I would expect—places where the Democrats think that loose restrictions and security gives them an illicit edge.

      5.If it were to prevent vote fraud, then proponents would recognize that vote fraud can happen in any direction and would not expect a partisan advantage from the new laws. They expect just that and say so in public. Mike Turzai in Pennsylvania said the voter ID law would deliver the state to Romney, not that it would deliver cleaner elections.

      Stop it—I am sick of the argument that one idiot’s comment single-handedly disproves and discredits the obvious, reasonable argument for an ID policy. So if a general somewhere were recorded saying, “I can’t wait til we fry those yellow bastards,” that would PROVE that dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima wasn’t motivated by military considerations, but was an act of racism, right? it’s a dishonest, lame argument that comes awfully close in my book to doing the opposite—proving the bad faith of anti-ID critics. So let’s see—a tax increase on the wealthy is proposed to help close the deficit, and some tool in the White House is caught on tape saying..”This is great! One more step to confiscating the money from those rich pigs and giving it to the workers who are exploited by this evil Capitalist system!” So this proves, by your logic, that the whole effort is really a sneaky way to topple our system. As if you can’t tell, I despise the Mike Turzai talking point—it is either dishonest of designed for idiots, and you aren’t a logical candidate for either. You are proposing the “The dumbest rationale must be the real one” Principle. Stop.

      6. Are the IDs going to be issued without charge? Wisconsin was charging $28 for an ID card. To avoid the letter of the law about poll taxes, they allow a fee waiver. As of the last report I saw the applicant had to know about the waiver somehow and specifically ask for it.

      So what? Those are implementation issues, nothing more. It’s a hassle dealing with the DMV. Life is a hassle. Nobody decreed that everyone in life has to have the same level of annoyance and inconvenience. My polling place is literally a 2 minute walk. Others have to drive or take a bus is a trek that takes hours. Are they being discriminated by the map???

      7. A DMV employee who talked too freely about the fee waiver was fired the next day. I hope the resulting publicity changed the policy but there should be no doubt how it was meant to work before people found out.

      Mike Turzai has rotted your brain. This is nothing but confirmation bias. Some unions have fought the requirement the union must tell members have they have certain options that may cost the unions money. Does that mean that the unions don’t have legitimate purposes?

      8. The kindest thing to say about voter ID laws is that they’re intended to block legal votes from Democrats and not specifically from blacks.

      They are intended to ensure security and integrity, especially since there are 12 million illegal aliens that Democrats are even trying to give the vote to by law. Your statement is ridiculous on its face. Do you think the ID requirements for flying are designed to keep Democrats on the ground?

      9. Kindness is an ethical value but we should not give the benefit of the doubt to people who have had a hundred and fifty years of practice inventing innocent-sounding measures (who could object to testing for literacy?) to keep as many blacks away from the polls as possible without getting caught at it.

      Your statements are getting sillier and more offensive. There hasn’t been a poll tax in 70 years, or a literacy test. Those people are dead, Fred. And lumping any group into “those people” based on presumed attitudes from ancient history is called BIGOTRY, and I object to it, personally. I’m a Boston-raised, Harvard educated lawyer-ethicist whose scholarly specialty is US political history and leadership. I abhor discrimination in all its forms, and my record and writings back that up. I think voter ID is essential, just and obvious. Don’t tell me that I hold this position because my ancestors were singing Dixie and waving fire hoses.

      10.”For example, when my wife lived in Virginia, it was only possible to register to vote for an hour and a half every month, in person, at a place reachable only by car. Everyone knew the reason.”

      Sounds like neat trick. 1) Huh? 2) So what? 3) I live in Virginia and have for 35 years. This isn’t true now, if it ever was.

      “Virginia today has a Republican Party official, rightly condemned by our host, who said it would be just fine if voting procedures kept “lazy blacks” away. One person proves nothing, if he’s on the fringe. His election to a leadership position proves that his attitude is at least acceptable to the rank and file. Who else has the rank and file voted for? How many of the officials they voted for supervise election procedures? What goals will those officials have?”

      11. More Tarzai logic. He was immediately forced to resign. There are idiots everywhere, in high positions in both parties. Cherry-picking the worst to prove they are typical of the whole is a cheap tactic. If I do it, and I have, I’m sure, call me on it. It does show that the organizations are lazy, badly policed and corrupt, and that voters tolerate fools. Meanwhile, if he had just said lazy voters, I’d agree with him.

      12. “Disparate impact” should be presumed deliberate when it happens in a jurisdiction with a long history of acting in bad faith. Honest cases of accidental disparity would disenfranchise whites as often as blacks.

      Disparate impact is an abused and cynically manipulated concept. A legitimate law is a legitimate law, and if it has unintended consequences, then deal with them, don’t throw out the law. Your contention about “long history” was pronounced inaccurate and out of date by SCOTUS, and I agree with the decisions.

      The opposition to vote ID is based on bias, bigotry, race-baiting, cynical politics, disrespect for the institutions of democracy and terrible logic. There are a few opposing views I have utter contempt for, and this is one of them.

      • “if it has unintended consequences, then deal with them, don’t throw out the law.”

        OK. If disenfranchising people who’ve been voting legally for their entire lives is an unintended consequence, then voter ID proponents who didn’t intend it would deal with it, by launching an outreach effort to get IDs in the hands of people who don’t have them.

        Wherever they do that, I’ll accept that they want honest elections open to all eligible voters and to nobody else. I’d support a voter ID law in that case.

        Otherwise I will conclude _from their actions_ that their goal is partisan at best. There are two possible reasons that it’s always Republicans pushing these laws. One possibility is that it will lead to partisan advantage. The other is that Republicans are devoted to honesty in elections and are the only ones who are.

        “I abhor discrimination in all its forms, and my record and writings back that up.”

        They do indeed. Your outrage at racist incidents is obviously heartfelt.

        Oh, wait — did you think I was questioning [i]your[/i] motives?! No, no, no. I do think you’re taking the laws at face value while the people pushing them know exactly what they’re doing.

        • And come to think of it, by my standards I should have made that unmistakably clear in the first place. I will remember to be more explicit.

        • “OK. If disenfranchising people who’ve been voting legally for their entire lives is an unintended consequence, then voter ID proponents who didn’t intend it would deal with it, by launching an outreach effort to get IDs in the hands of people who don’t have them.”

          Agree 100%. And free (or very cheap) and easy ID’s are available as part of the new laws at DOVs in many states. Getting the IDs are as easy as registering to vote was for a century. There have to be such provisions, or similar ones.

        • ” There are two possible reasons that it’s always Republicans pushing these laws. One possibility is that it will lead to partisan advantage.”

          I’d submit Occam’s razor supports a possibility you don’t mention, and is more plausible, given the Democrats more historic connection with voter fraud (not saying Republicans haven’t done it on occasion, just the data tends to show Democrats engage in it as a feature, not a bug). The other possibility probability is that the Republicans wish to remove the unfair advantage under which Democrats have benefitted for over a century (or more) since they enacted poll taxes, grandfather laws, engaged in rampant ballot stuffing, and voter intimidation.

          If you want to call that “partisan advantage” you’d me misleading, or you’d have bought the party propaganda hook, line and sinker.

        • There are two possible reasons that it’s always Republicans pushing these laws. One possibility is that it will lead to partisan advantage.

          That doesn’t make it wrong, though, does it? If voter fraud exists on a large scale and primarily benefits Democrats (I have no idea whether this is the case) then fixing it has a partisan advantage. So does not fixing it.

          The other is that Republicans are devoted to honesty in elections and are the only ones who are.

          There are two possible reasons that it’s always Democrats opposing these laws… can you see where I’m going with this?

      • Here, in one observation, is a clincher that voter ID laws are being pushed disingenuously.

        North Carolina’s law does not accept public employee ID cards for voting purposes. Since the card is by definition adequate for government purposes, there’s no way to spin that as a security measure. But public employees are likely Democratic voters.

        The continued history of racist evasions of election laws is an empirical matter, which Congress investigated before re-authorizing the Voting Rights Act. I salute the Southern legislators who overwhelmingly voted to keep Federal supervision in place. They are an example of the progress which the South can take pride in. Your accusation of “bigotry” is unwarranted and I ask you to withdraw it. Also, while you’re at it, please reassure me that “If true” was not intended to question my wife’s truthfulness about what she went through to register to vote in Buckingham County.

        • North Carolina’s law does not accept public employee ID cards for voting purposes. Since the card is by definition adequate for government purposes, there’s no way to spin that as a security measure. But public employees are likely Democratic voters.

          No, they are not “adequate”. If you can’t use it to board a plane, it isn’t enough for the Voter ID law.

          You are talking about an employee ID card, and even though the employer is the state, it is still just an employee ID card.

          However, to becomes one of those employees, they had to show an actual, State-issued photo ID, so that would work fine.

          Seriously, are you high? Did someone hit you in the head? This is shit I would expect from tgt, not you.

          At the very least, could you stop spouting the ignorant bullshit from TPM? It’s annoying, and I already have a headache.

    • The kindest thing to say about voter ID laws is that they’re intended to block legal votes from Democrats and not specifically from blacks

      So what? Even if this is true, it is for the good of the country.

      What we have is rule by media elites. any measuire taken to counter that is justified by its goal.

      “Disparate impact” should be presumed deliberate when it happens in a jurisdiction with a long history of acting in bad faith.

      disparate impact is routinely rejected by the Supreme Court.

  2. Voter ID law aside, I agree with Fred that it’s not hypocritical. Given that a protest march increases the odds of interaction with Law Enforcement, being sure to have ID is a sensible precaution. One might suggest that the cops SHOULDN’T demand your papers, please, at the drop of a hat, but it’s smart to be prepared when they do. “I shouldn’t have to show ID to vote” does not equal “I shouldn’t expect the police to ask for my ID if a riot or assault occurs during my protest march.”

    • Huh? Why does that argue for it NOT being hypocritical? The issue is whether the legitimate utility of an ID for a legitimate purpose is unfair discrimination against minorities, who in this case are the main marchers! If the protest organizers by their own actions declare that having an ID is essential and required for ANYTHING less important than making the country work, it’s hypocritical.

      • Really? “Huh?” I just said that I’m not arguing about the legitimacy, racism, or anything else of the voter ID laws. I’m talking about the fact that planning ahead for a protest march isn’t hypocritical. Yes, you are correct that organized protest is a fundamental right just as voting is- but it’s also a hell of a lot more likely to get you arrested by cops in riot gear. Do you have a passing familiarity with the concept of picking your battles? They are choosing the battleground that voting shouldn’t require ID, not the battleground that you should try to get yourself arrested because someone doesn’t like the look of your march.

        It’s not hypocritical to say that “if you don’t bring your ID with you to the march you might end up in jail if the police ask you for it. Bring it.” even if the purpose of the march is that ID’s shouldn’t be required for things that some people think should require ID’s. It’s common sense.

        • I’m talking about the fact that planning ahead for a protest march isn’t hypocritical.

          Bullshit.

          If you can plan ahead for a rally that was maybe – maybe – announce three months ago, you can plan ahead for something that happens at regular, set intervals every two to four years.

          Something that, I might add, has far more impact than a bunch of fuckwits wandering around and yelling. Not to mention which, you are not required to have ID at any point – not to march, and not if you have interactions with the police.

          So to suggest that it is just a good idea to have ID for a march but completely disenfranchising to have one to vote is an act of idiocy.

          • Come on, Scott, you’re the one here who lets your Libertarian flag fly the proudest- you’re really going to use the argument “You’re not required legally to have your ID on you when you’re protesting” to imply that if the police decide they don’t like the looks of you they can cause you some major headaches, especially if they ask for ID and you can’t/won’t show it?

            • Come on, Scott, you’re the one here who lets your Libertarian flag fly the proudest- you’re really going to use the argument “You’re not required legally to have your ID on you when you’re protesting” to imply that if the police decide they don’t like the looks of you they can cause you some major headaches, especially if they ask for ID and you can’t/won’t show it?

              Your point? A cop that would arrest you and make trouble because you don’t have an ID to produce upon their request will make problems for you even if you can produce an ID.

              You are assuming a scenario that is winnable by the citizen, which I reject as being anything more than a theory.

              If a cop asks for ID, and you don’t have an ID (because you took the bus there or walked or got there by some other means than driving, because you have to have your ID to drive), then you simply don’t have it to produce.

              If you do have it, then you have to produce it. I would suggest it is wiser to not bring ID to a protest, but that’s just me.

          • And because I know you wont’ get your feelings hurt if I swear, Jesus fuck read what I wrote. I didn’t say it was disenfranchising to need an ID to vote. I didn’t say I agreed with them at all. I LIKE voter ID laws. So get off your fucking high horse and read the damn thing you’re replying to, where I say that WHEN YOU KNOW POLICE MIGHT HASSLE YOU it’s reasonable to have ID, even if you don’t believe that ID is all that important. You know, so you don’t get to see what a patrol car looks like from the inside.

        • Sure Huh?. It’s hypocritical to admit the essential nature of one activity in which an ID is required while protesting another use of the same device in a far more important activity with wider ranging consequences! The point is that the requirement of an ID has the same disparate impact in both instances, but because the organizers acknowledge the importance of the activity, they admit that on balance, the disparate impact is secondary and not the intention. In the case of voting, they simultaneously admit the importance of the activity, but claim that avoiding a (dubious) disparate impact—the same one they are willing to accept and shrug off in their own activity!—is more important than maintaining that more important activity’s–voting— integrity, because of the identity of the group making the same choice they did!

          How could you not see that as hypocrisy on an epic scale? It is a direct contradiction.

          • Because if ID is required to vote and you show up without it, the poll people don’t let you vote. If the cops decide you need ID at your protest march, particularly if anything at all violent or disruptive breaks out, you an end up arrested, tased, beaten, or shot.

            Tell me, do you think people protesting every law should break it? You’ve used the dress code protests at the Ivy League school (which one escapes me) as an illustration before. If the protesters had said “We don’t think the dress code is important, but while we picket/leaflet/protest, let’s follow the current rules even though we want them changed” is that hypocritical? Even if these protesters thought they should not EVER need ID, how is it hypocritical to say “we shouldn’t have to carry this, but right NOW we need to carry it to not get arrested, so bring it.”

            And don’t suggest that because the right to assemble is protected, that police WON’T break up a protest, demand ID even when they have no legal right to do so, or cause massive problems if you don’t obey their idea of when you should be ID”ing yourself or dispersing.

            • Because if ID is required to vote and you show up without it, the poll people don’t let you vote.

              Actually, you do vote – you cast a provisional ballot that gets counted when you go show your ID at the election offices, just like when you go to vote but aren’t registered. You just have to make a trip to prove who you are and that you were eligible to vote.

              Tell me, do you think people protesting every law should break it?

              Not sure what the hell you mean, since protesting doesn’t require ID.

              The NAACP wanted IDs so they knew who was at their march, dude, because it is astonishingly easy for a non-union guy to join the ranks of the union people they bus in to give themselves a crowd worth noticing.

              • The first, I concede the point- It’s never come up for me, and my state doesn’t have voter ID law, so I didn’t know that was how that worked.

                To the second, I didn’t mean to imply that going without ID was breaking the law. That point was aimed at Jack for saying that it’s hypocritical to be protesting ID rules and tell people to carry ID- just because you are protesting something doesn’t mean you have to refuse to acknowledge it.

                The reasons? I’ll admit that I made an unfounded assumption, but so are you. The sheet presented just says to bring and carry ID. If the main reason is so they can track who’s there, it leans toward the hypocritical (but still doesn’t get there, I think, as a private group can impose restrictions on participation that the government can’t, as a general rule). If the main purpose was to help grease the cogs of police interactions, then it’s just being sensible. Any assumption about which of those reasons, or any other, was the driving force behind the item on the list is pure conjecture.

            • Fascinating distinction that I didn’t focus one—a tactic can be both hypocritical and effective (or not). I’d call a dress code protest on the grounds that no one but an individual should ever, ever try to dictate another individual’s choice in clothes for any purpose, and those who wish to protest the attempt by Harvard administrators to do otherwise MUST be waering the folowing or we will not allow you to protests with us hypocritical, whatever the tactical reasons for its desired uniformity. And I think that the NAACP is essentially doing the same thing. Your argument that there’s a good reason for their requiring the ID is irrelevant to its hypocrisy. There is also a good reason for voter ID…the NAACP just chooses to focus on a bad reason as if that’s all there is (but they know the good reason and would not dent it exists, presumably.) Principle at issue: requiring voter ID for valid reasons. Action by the NAACP: protesting same, but requiring an ID to participate for a valid reason. The same supposed victims of the requirement being protested would ALSO be victims of the requirement for protesting it.

              That’s hypocrisy. It might be (or seem, or be argued to be) reasonable under the circumstances—there were anti-war, peace is everything protestors in the 60’s who advocated using violence—but it’s still hypocrisy.

              But I would not have considered the utilitarian angle without your determination. A tactic can be, on balance, ethical and hypocritical at the same time.

              • I already said this to Scott, but I think a big part of how hypocritical it seems comes from your assumption of why they told them to bring ID’s. If it’s so they can track who’s there and make sure everyone’s got their papers in order, it falls higher on the scale. If it’s a “heads up, the cops may cause trouble and if you’ve got an ID to show them it may go smoother” then it’s less so.

                Side question- do we have any idea if the organizers were checkign to see if people brought ID’s? From the look of the rest of the list it’s things they can’t concretely check, but appear to be “these are the things that will make us look the least like jerks, and make it the hardest for other people to try and make us out to look like jerks.”

                • No, we don’t, and that’s the real flaw in the post. If it’s just a guideline, rather than a requirement (it was phrased like requirement), then it is not so hypocritical. I’m sure the organizers could live with a “bring an ID if you have one, but if not, no biggie” voting law.

                  • That was going to be my point as well. I very much doubt that the organizers are checking for IDs, and not allowing someone to protest if they don’t have one. The list seems to be more a general “good ideas to follow” thing than anything else. They seem to want to make sure that the police don’t have easy reasons to detain the protestors.

                    • Hmm, for the libertarians, I would think they don’t want the government to control/keep track of them. Many homeless people have trouble keeping/being able to obtain ID. And many other people have photo ID, but change addresses far too frequently to be able to keep up the changes on their ID. They could get alcohol, or rent a car, but voting would actually be more difficult, ironically enough.

                    • Since voting requires that you register, and you register according to your address, then I would argue that if you voting where you are registered, then you would also be voting where the ID says you live (which would be the place you are registered for).

                      And anyways, that isn’t why the IDs are used, and you damned well know it – or rather, you would if you were independently curious. The IDs are to prove that the name you are voting under is the name that goes with your picture – that someone who is demonstrably not you is not using your name to cast a ballot. They still won’t know who you voted for (in theory), but they do know that you have voted.

                      The fact that some people don’t know the IDs are free is the fault of the people who oppose those laws, because they are the ones who push the “they cost money” meme. If they were being honest and actually informing people, no one would be unaware that the IDs can be gotten for free.

                  • It would be interesting to see a voting law something like that- you don’t have to show your ID to vote as a rule, but some random selection of people are asked for their ID. If you don’t have it, you fall into the “provisional vote” circumstance like I learned about from Scott today, where you have to come back to confirm your identity before your vote is counted. If you don’t bring your ID, you run the risk of going through some hassle. If you do bring it, you know that even if you get unlucky you’ll be fine. Hm…

                    • I wouldn’t object to that—it creates a motivation without being an absolute bar. I guarantee—guarantee—that such a proposal would be attacked on exactly the same basis that the current ID laws are.

                    • Of course it would. I’m just spitballing something that could work- you’d minimize slowdown, for one thing. But yeah, of COURSE it would be attacked. Michigan went all to pieces in the ’12 elections because they wanted to add a box you checked on your ballot that said “I am a legal resident of the US and am casting this ballot under the name I am registered under to vote” or similar boilerplate. Apparently that box was hostile to immigrants. *facepalm*

  3. Umm, not seeing it. These are active members of the NAACP – Organized, Educated and Aware.

    I think the rights they are protecting are the rights of the least among the rest of us – the poor, downtrodden, under-educated, the elderly, the suppressed minorities they represent.

    Everyone has the right to vote in this country. In theory, the Majority rules. Not just landowners, or the rich, or those with drivers licenses, etc.

    Face it – the Republican’s only recourse is to “Poll Tax” by another name. Voter fraud is ONLY a problem for those trying desperately to hang on to power, the increasing minority of the country club rich white male. Like Stephen Colbert.

    Election Fraud – now there’s a real threat to the Majority in this country, and to Democracy in General.. Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania. Write about that topic.

    • Face it – the Republican’s only recourse is to “Poll Tax” by another name. Voter fraud is ONLY a problem for those trying desperately to hang on to power, the increasing minority of the country club rich white male. Like Stephen Colbert.

      Considering the IDs are free, that’s a pretty fucking stupid “tax”…

    • Just plain—sorry—bullshit. IDs are nothing like a poll tax. Not close in any way. Picture IDs are a requirement of almost all aspects of modern daily life requiring trust. Voting should be able to meet the same level of trust as that required to enter a public building, take out a library book, to fly, or to cash a check. It’s more important, and easier to fake, than any of those.

    • Face it – the Republican’s only recourse is to “Poll Tax” by another name. Voter fraud is ONLY a problem for those trying desperately to hang on to power, the increasing minority of the country club rich white male. Like Stephen Colbert.

      So what? We need to save our country from the media elites who dishonestly manipulate public opinion.

      any means to keep progressives out of power, any means to defeat the media elites, is justified under these circumstances.

      • MIchael…. The ends never justify the means on an ethics forum. We debate issues on their merits, not by some jaded and cynical cause-effect paradigm. We agree on the outcome (ID being necessary) while disagreeing on the reasons, and it takes the level of the conversation down. You are Turzai-ing. Stop it.

  4. STUDENT IDsStudents will be issued one photo ID at the beginning of the school year. Students are required to have their IDs with them during the school day and at school events (including dances). When requested, students are to display their ID to staff personnel. If the ID is defaced, lost, or damaged during the year, students are to purchase a replacement ID from their administrative office for $3.00. Students who are in possession of specialized “swipe cards” are required to pay a $7.00 replacement fee if the card is defaced, lost, or damaged by other than normal use.LOCKER USAGELockers are the property of the school district. A student is assigned to one locker for the duration of a school year for the purpose of storing school-related materials and such authorized personal items outer garments, footwear, grooming aids, and lunch. All students are responsible for the contents of their lockers and should not divulge locker combinations to other students.

  5. I’ll bite here too, I’m sorry Jack! Forgive me!

    I don’t see it as hypocrisy but I do see enough irony to fill the Empire State Building. Is the difference between hypocrisy and irony too thin to distinguish? I don’t think so, but here’s my thought:

    Do’s and Don’ts are advisory in nature. “Bring Photo ID” is in the same list as “Know your bus number.” and “Look out for the elderly.”

    In the post, you state clearly: “the possession of photo IDs as a prerequisite to protesting the required possession of photo IDs.”

    I don’t see anywhere in the source article, your post, or the supplied image that photo ID is a “prerequisite”, which is a very specific term with a specific meaning. If I saw “prerequisite” anywhere (I’ll take a pointer), I’d agree with your statement of hypocrisy. Absent that pointer, I have to settle with irony.

    • You may be right, but consider: the document I reproduced in the post says..“As invitees, participants agree to conduct themselves accordingly….” followed by a group of bulletpoints, the last of which says,“DO bring photo identification…and keep it with you at all times.”

      Now, if a document defining the qualifications of an invitee requires a pledge (agreement) to do certain things, this creates a unilateral contract, and someone participating triggers the contractual obligation to meet those terms.

      How does that differ from a “prerequisite,” in practice?
      You must have an ID to vote vs. “if you come to protest, you must, per our agreement, have an ID.”

      I’d say the difference between those is even thinner than between irony and hypocrisy.

      • My only counter-point is the nature of the event. A march / rally / protest is not, by nature, a closed event. A successful event will grow as onlookers decide to spontaneously become participants even though they weren’t “officially invited”. Word of mouth spreads and enlists new participants who show up without ever having seen the original invitation. So, while I respect your opinion as it is, I will maintain that the lack of a photo ID is not a barrier to participation.

        Moving on to my point about irony, you would think that a group that wants to make a point about wanting to exercise their rights without an ID would embrace the exercise of another right without an ID. But the rights are materially different and have different reasons and justifications. With the disparity between the scenarios (marching v. voting) “I can’t get there from here”.

        • But isn’t that essentially arguing that if you can get away with violating a requirement, it isn’t really a requirement? Under that logic, drinking age requirement is just a suggestion. Any unenforceable requirement (in an “open even”, for example) is still a requirement; it just relies on self-enforcement, as in “ethics.”

          • Perhaps it might be my turn to say you are the one over-thinking this?

            You start with organizers who want to hold an open event for which they know they will have little to no control over the participants. They want their event to go smoothly and they create a knowledge guide so that their participants can have the best experience possible. Most people know that if you are contacted by LEOs, they will always ask you for ID and the stop will generally much quicker than if you refuse or don’t have an ID.

            That said, there’s still nothing that indicates this is anything more than guidance. Even if I go along with the idea that this is a self-policing requirement, I think we should first see some evidence that shows the “requirement” was advertised (notice was provided) on site and people were being reminded that they should have their ID if they wanted to participate.

            Even then, I don’t think hypocrisy comes into play until someone is actually turned away or denounced for lack of valid photo ID… which is their complaint about the Voter ID laws…that people are being barred from participation, turned away.

              • 1) Touché.

                2) That only holds in my estimation of the “requirement” in the first place. Which I contend wasn’t communicated and doesn’t exist.

                Above, in your image:

                As participants, invitees agree to:
                1) Conduct themselves accordingly
                2) Promptly obey instructions of the Marshalls at all times.

                End of agreement.
                P.S. that agreement is only for invitees, not others.

                Do’s and Don’ts are then guidance for a smoother experience. Guidance is not requirement. No requirement, no hypocrisy. #IRONYREIGNS

                😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.